Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
A. Ramachandran & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.(MD)No.17155 of 2013 W.P.(MD)Nos. 17156, 17191, 17236, 17424, & 17971 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.17155 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.17156 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD).No.17191 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.17236 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.17424 of 2013 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.17971 of 2013 & W.P.(MD).No.17155 of 2013
Decided On : 06-11-2013
Judicial Review - Key Answers - AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1230 - Mathematics, History, Commerce - 139(1) of Income Tax Act - [A] - [Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade I] - [139(1) of Income Tax Act, 35 of Income Tax Act, 80GGA of the Income Tax Act] - The court discussed the scope of judicial review in respect of key answers and referred to the much celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1230. The court examined challenges made to key answers in the present writ petitions and concluded that the Board was right in deleting certain questions from valuation. The court also directed the Board to revalue certain questions and award marks only for those candidates who had selected specific options as the correct answers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners had applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade I for the Government Higher Secondary Schools 2012-2013 and attended the examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai. The petitioners challenged certain key answers in the written examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board was right in deleting certain questions from valuation and directed the Board to revalue certain questions and award marks only for those candidates who had selected specific options as the correct answers.
Issues: Challenges made to key answers in the written examination for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade I for the Government Higher Secondary Schools 2012-2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the challenges made to the key answers and concluded that the Board was right in deleting certain questions from valuation. The court also directed the Board to revalue certain questions and award marks only for those candidates who had selected specific options as the correct answers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and the connected miscellaneous petitions, and directed the Board to revalue certain questions and award marks only for those candidates who had selected specific options as the correct answers.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main legal issue pertains to the scope of judicial review concerning the authority of the Board to delete certain questions from valuation and the correctness of key answers in competitive examinations [judgement_subject].
The court emphasizes that the scope of judicial review in challenges to key answers is limited and that the presumption is that the key answers are correct unless demonstrably wrong, supported by authoritative textbooks and expert opinions [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) .
The court consistently upheld the Board's decision to delete questions when experts or authoritative sources indicated the questions were incomplete, ambiguous, or contained incorrect options (!) (!) (!) .
When challenges were made regarding specific questions, the court relied on expert reports, standard textbooks, and official information to determine the correctness of answers or the validity of deletion decisions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that questions were rightly deleted when they were found to be incomplete, ambiguous, or based on incorrect information in prescribed textbooks or official sources (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where the Board's decision was supported by expert opinion, standard textbooks, and authoritative sources, the court declined to interfere, affirming the Board's authority and discretion (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
When discrepancies arose between different versions of questions (e.g., English and Tamil), or when questions contained multiple correct answers due to authoritative texts, the court often directed the Board to re-evaluate or to award marks accordingly, emphasizing fairness and reliance on expert opinion (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court also reinforced that the authority of the Board to modify or delete questions is supported by the need for clarity, correctness, and fairness in the examination process, and that such decisions are within their jurisdiction unless shown to be arbitrary or unsupported by evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that judicial review is confined to assessing whether the Board's decisions were based on material evidence, expert opinion, and proper procedure, rather than re-evaluating the correctness of key answers independently (!) (!) .
The court dismissed several writ petitions where challenges to the deletion or marking of questions were unsupported by evidence or where the Board's decisions were backed by expert reports and authoritative sources, affirming the Board's discretion in question valuation (!) (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal principles and findings regarding the scope of judicial review, authority of the examination Board, and the role of expert evidence in challenging key answers and question deletions.
In all these cases, the petitioners had applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade I for the Government Higher Secondary Schools 2012-2013 and attended the examination conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai. The written examination was held on 21.07.2013. The question papers contained 150 objective type questions, carrying one mark each. The tentative key answers were published by the Board and there were also objections regarding some of the key answers in various subjects. The Teachers Recruitment Board, after having consultation with the experts in the relevant subject, had published the modified key answers and based on the same, the answer sheets of the students were all valued. Finally, the results were also published. At that stage, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions, challenging certain key answers. That is how these writ petitions are before this Court for disposal.
2. Before going into the challenges made in the key answers, at the outset, let us have a look into the scope of judicial review available to this Court in respect of such matters. On this aspect, one need not labor much, because the law has been well settled by the much celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1230. In that case, the petitioners therein have contended that some of the key answers furnished by the paper setter were incorrect and the correct answers written by the students had not been considered, because such answers did not tally with the wrong key answers. When the challenges were made to the same, the High Court had allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to award marks to the students to answer given, based on the correct key answers. Thereafter, the same was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
While considering the scope of the judicial review, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.16, 17 & 18 has held as follows;
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.
18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doin
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
